Shark Cage Diving License Pending for St Francis Bay

10 July, 2015

by admin

UPDATE: The Department of Environmental affairs released a public statement in response to this on 27 July 2015. The department stated that no such application is been reviewed at present and that Jeffrey’s Bay, St Francis Bay and the Cape St Francis region are not designated for white shark cage diving under the regulations relating to the management of white shark cage diving. The statement did, however, say that new permits will be issued in 2016 and applications for these will be reviewed within the current financial year. Permits are then issued to “any person who…satisfies the criteria and objectives set out in the regulations and policy for the management of white shark cage diving”.
Read the full statement below the original story.

Seal Point lies a few flicks of a shark’s tail around the corner from St Francis Bay.

A prominent businessman from the region has made several public claims that he is submitting an application to gain a permit to run cage diving tours in the area.

Sharks are obviously a concern not only for surfers, but for anyone who uses the ocean frequently. Divers, bathers, paddlers and surfers are all potentially at risk each time they enter the ocean. It’s a risk we all readily accept but many ocean users have mixed feelings when it comes to shark cage diving and, more specifically, chumming.

Cage diving operators point out that the amount of chum used is insignificant when compared to naturally occurring chum slicks (like those found near large colonies of seals). They also point out that chumming takes places where large populations of sharks are already present.

While there is no conclusive scientific evidence that proves chumming is responsible for more shark activity or increases the chance of a shark encounter, many lifelong surfers believe otherwise.

“The potential danger to our lives is the reason we’re opposed to this shark cage diving permit potentially being issued,” said Seal Point Board Riders Chairman Dave Fish. “History suggests that wherever wild animals have been fed it changes their behaviour. For example, take a drive from here to Plett and along the way you see signs on the side of the road warning that you’ll be fined R500 for feeding the baboons. Why? We’ve had two shark attacks in the past month and we do not want more. Between J-Bay, St Francis and Seal Point there are a number of world class waves, and the number of surfers that visit the area far outnumber the potential visitors who’ll come to shark cage dive. We don’t want to lose out on the tourism to the area because the shark situation becomes out of hand and surfers are too afraid to visit. Already we’ve had concerned mothers phoning us worried about their kids should things go ahead. It’ll be detrimental not only for the surfing community but the area as a whole.”

World class waves can be found in St Francis Bay and surrounds.

At the time of publishing, Zigzag had sent a request to the Department of Environmental Affairs for clarity on the situation and asking what criteria need to be met before a license is issued and what studies or data are taken into consideration.

According to regulations, 20kg of chum is allowed to be used by licensed cage diving operators per day but they are not allowed to feed sharks the bait, typically tuna heads, that is lowered into the water with the chum.

However, Zigzag has learnt through previous interviews with officials and cage diving operators that not all operators in South Africa comply with this rule and that the industry is not adequately monitored or policed. While many of the licensed operators comply with the rules, there are not effective measures – such as an independent monitor or official patrols – to keep unscrupulous operators in check.

*Statement from Department of Environmental Affairs, issued on 27 July 2105

The Department of Environment Affairs has noted with concern the false allegations about a pending permit application for a white shark cage diving operation in Jeffrey’s Bay, St Francis Bay and Cape St Francis region.

Firstly, it is important to note that currently Jeffrey’s Bay, St Francis Bay and the Cape St Francis region are not designated for white shark cage diving under the Regulations relating to the Management of White Shark Cage Diving. Current designated areas where white shark cage diving activity is permitted and allowed are:

Secondly, permits for white shark cage diving are allocated every five (5) years from the date of the previous allocation. Thus, a fresh invitation for applications for white shark cage diving permits therefore only occurs every 5 years. Permits are allocated to any person who in response to an invitation placed in the government gazette, satisfies the criteria and objectives set out in the regulations and policy for the management of white shark cage diving. The current permits will only expire July 2016 and an invitation for interested parties to apply will be advertised in the current financial year.

To date the Department has not entertained any applications on an ad hoc basis. Allegations of the Department considering any applications and being in the process of allocating a permit in St Francis Bay or Jeffrey’s Bay are therefore false.

The Department would like to point out that sharks are highly migratory species occurring mostly on the continental slopes; with many also found in the South African coastal waters, periodically.

Zigzag is committed to producing top quality surf journalism. Since 1976 we’ve been the MOUTHPIECE OF SOUTH AFRICAN SURFING, and at the FOREFRONT OF AFRICAN SURF DISCOVERY. As we grow we’re focusing more attention on important social and environmental issues as they relate to surfing and the ocean, while still delivering the BEST VIDEOS, IMAGES and SURF STORIES to froth you out!

Our content takes a lot of time, effort and money to produce. Advertising doesn’t float the boat alone. We need our audience to back us too. So if you appreciate what we do, come aboard!

THE BEST WAY TO SUPPORT THE ZAG IS TO SUBSCRIBE. You get AFRICA’S FINEST SURF MAGAZINE delivered to you every issue and your contribution keeps the wheels turning across all our platforms: PRINT, ONLINE AND SOCIAL.

We offer several DIFFERENT SUBSCRIPTION DEALS and SPECIAL OFFERS to those who sign up on DEBIT ORDER.

I fail to see how the Mick Fanning attack helps an argument for cage diving. Please do enlighten me on your logic…

sharkbait

20 July, 2015 at 1:21 pm ·

Well, as far as I’m aware, the closest cage diving operation is about 350km away (not sure of the sea distance but would be similar). So should there be a licence started in St Francis, which is closer, this would be a ‘before’ stat. I realise this is starting to seem that I’m coming across as a pro-cage diving. I’m neither for or against it, but I do think whatever decision is made, needs to be made using the correct data and currently, I’m yet to see any CREDIBLE data that points to cage diving having any negative influence on shark attacks.

I know one of the arguments is that sharks migrate a lot, but you have to agree, that if the hypothesis that cage diving caused more attacks was correct, you would see a higher than usual change locally before you saw it further afield. Or do we understand sharks so well that we now say that they only attack once they no longer have cage boats around?

I know this isn’t a popular opinion but data doesn’t lie… it can be manipulated, for sure… but that doesn’t tend to stand up to scrutiny… such as that ‘stop cage diving’ site has shown.

JStrangler

20 July, 2015 at 2:08 pm ·

1: There is plenty of credible data when the correct facts are looked at. Pro cage diving people love to throw around the fact that attacks would have increased by a larger amount than they have. However they fail to recognize that organizations like sharks spotters have aided bathers and water sports enthusiast at avoiding them. Remove the spotters and there would be a huge increase in human shark encounters.

2: A sharks primary guidance system for attacks are the ampullae of lorenzini (yes I studied sharks) which sense the small voltage created by an animal (the heart in the humans case). A raised or faster heart rate informs a shark that an animal is distressed or injured and allows it to pick its prey accordingly. Enter cage diving – Lets throw fish blood and tuna heads (a natural food source for sharks) in the water and place humans in a cage who all have elevated heart rates. Its not long before a shark will start to associate the taste of fish blood with the characteristics of the voltage produced by the human heart. Take a look at any cage diving video online, the sharks always try stick their noses into the cage and bite the cage. If cage diving truly wasn’t a problem, then surely you could chum, feed the sharks and then just jump overboard without the cage.

3: No I do not agree that there would be more attacks locally first. In the current cage diving locations there is a fairly large source of natural prey for the sharks (seals). Therefore they will concentrate on the natural prey first. Once you take migration into account, the sharks may move through areas where there is less of a natural food source and then point 2 becomes more serious.

4: I honestly couldn’t be bothered by the cage diving site and its data. To be honest many studies conducted thus far are incomplete and many are manipulated because people need further funding.

I could probably add more but I need to get back to work…

sharkbait

20 July, 2015 at 7:28 pm ·

Cool, would love to see that other data… But again, the only data I’ve seen doesn’t match with your point… Hopefully, there is accurate data out there which could be conclusive but I doubt it because in a system like the sea, which we don’t understand completely, there are too many other variables that are impossible to predict.

for example, there are 2 shark attacks listed in Port Alfred. One of them was a surfer landing on a raggie by accident when he jumped off the back of a wave. The raggie bit his fin and this is now listed as a shark attack post-cage diving. The other was a drowning victim which had bites when the body was recovered a few days later. There were suggestions that the bites were all post-mortum but it’s listed as an attack. There were 4 fatalities in Port St Johns that are strongly thought to be Zambezi’s but no proof. I have heard stories of a whale that stranded being buried there and the decomposition of it drawing in sharks. I doubt anyone knows for certain but these are all examples of incidents that skew the data. Pro Cage diving ppl will want those attacks excluded but anti cage diving will want them included. Even in a lab, it’s difficult to prevent ‘dirty’ data from skewing the results… It’s almost impossible in an environment like the ocean, especially when there are very strong emotions involved. It’s possible the cage diving promotes attacks. We also need to take into account the fact that in the past, there were probably many attacks that went unreported compared to now, where the information flow is better. It’s just as possible that sharks are learning to recognise people as non prey items. At a glance, there seems to be an increase in the percentage of surfer/body boarder/spear fishermen attacks over swimmers and bathers(standing) which might give some credence to this theory as it is easier for them to mistake a surfboard as a seal but more likely that they would recognise a swimmer/bather as human… But again, I don’t think it’s possible to get enough clean data to prove it either way.

JStrangler

21 July, 2015 at 12:35 pm ·

Here’s some data:

1: Since 2004, there have been over 1700 shark sightings at shark spotter beaches. When this happens they sound the alarms and get all bathers out of the water. Therefore that’s 1700 times a potential attack has been avoided. Many of the beaches with spotters are in fact in close proximity to cage diving operations (especially in the Western Cape). http://sharkspotters.org.za/

2: You cant only focus on Great White sharks. There are other sharks that attack and there are other sharks that are seen by cage diving.

3: Above Rob has listed evidence that behavior does change with cage diving. How about rather than setting up more cage diving operations at the risk of those that enter the sea, they set up comprehensive studies that will prove once and for all that the existing cage diving operations do cause the suspected problem.

sharkbait

21 July, 2015 at 12:43 pm ·

Fair enough… But what about about beaches without spotters? Why haven’t there been attacks there? I’m not disagreeing with, I’m just saying that we can’t make a reasonable decision based on flimsy data and emotions. With all due respect, the fact that shark spotters have pulled people out the water, while logical that it has decreased attacks, is not conclusive. They are only permanently at 4 beaches and seasonally at another 4. I still don’t think you get the point that I am making… I’m not for or against cage diving. I’m saying there is not enough information out there to make an informed decision.

It’s like saying that tow trucks cause car accidents because every time I see an accident, there are tow trucks there…

JStrangler

21 July, 2015 at 2:19 pm ·

There have been attacks at beaches without spotters…Plett, Jeffreys Bay, Port St Johns just to name a few. Then all the ones in Australia.

My decision and standpoint is not based on flimsy data and emotion. Its based on the fact I studied and wrote a thesis on sharks and have grown up surfing, diving and deep sea fishing. I have a deep respect for the creatures and choose to read up and gain as much knowledge as possible.

I do get that you are trying to remain impartial, however remaining impartial on a subject where the information is actually available and claiming its not is a whole other story.

There are plenty of papers all over the internet about sharks. Read them and then correlate that data. There are even paper on cage diving and how they change sharks behaviour…

I understand your fear, but the evidence still points to there being less attacks/per capita since the start of cage diving, which was around 2000. In the 15 years before then, there were 9 GW unprovoked fatalities and 1 other type of shark. In the 15 years since, there have been 10 GW unprovoked, 5 other, and 6 unknown. Now some of those unknown, aren’t even certain there was a shark attack. Some of these where the body was found with sharks bites are thought to be post-mortum. Now remember, since 1991, GWs have been protect so the population has increased massively. Add to that the fact that there are now double/triple or more swimmers/surfers/sea users in the water compared to 25-30 years ago, there should actually be far more shark attacks simply by there being a larger chance of interaction. Some would argue that shark cage diving has contributed to a nett reduction in per capita shark deaths…

I don’t put much faith in the information on that site. They clearly haven’t
done thorough research. In their 1st paragraph they make 2 claims

1. From 1991 to 2010 there have
been 94 shark attacks, with 16 fatalities. (There have
actually been 146 attacks with 24 fatalities – But cage diving only started in
around 2000, so this period is actually irrelevant to their argument. 1991 is
when GW were protected so this is where they might’ve got confused)

2. Most recently from 2010- May 2012
there have been a further 18 attacks with 8 fatalities. (7 fatalities
from 22 attacks)

So as you can
see, by not doing proper research, they force you to take everything they say
into doubt. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not pro-shark diving (Although I
have done it). I’m pro evidence. If the evidence pointed to an increase in
shark attacks then I would be the 1st person trying to get it
banned. I’m an open water swimmer so very aware of the shark threat. But the
evidence just doesn’t support the claims. A couple of things to bear in mind:

The current
hotspots for cage diving are off Gansbaai and Mossel Bay. Where are the attacks
there then? Both are major holiday destinations with thousands of
swimmers/surfers every year. There have only been 3 fatalities in these areas
since cage diving started. 2 poachers actually diving in Shark Alley where they
do the cage diving (I don’t even think these should count towards the stats)
and one spear fisherman.

Even if the
stats had gone up (which they haven’t) it still wouldn’t prove the cage diving
is responsible. What about over fishing causing a decline in the seal
population?

So there are
too many variables to even start to point a finger. When you start a cause
based on bad statistics, you actually do more damage to your cause than if you
had kept quiet. I got my stats from here: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/place/south_africa

I’ve just seen another claim on that site… that there was only 1 fatal attack between 1905-1991… what a joke… there were 54… I can’t take anything on that site seriously…

Squidpaws

20 July, 2015 at 5:55 pm ·

Fair enough Sharkbait. Maybe the stats on that site aren’t spot on, but all that aside. I still don’t support cage diving. It’s common sense that when you feed a wild animal it will only be a matter of time before they start associating people with food… You can’t tell me that chumming the water to attract sharks and then adding the smell of neoprene wetsuits in the mix will not do the same thing?

sharkbait

20 July, 2015 at 7:34 pm ·

The honest answer is I don’t know. I do agree that your theory seems logical but then why does the data point the other way. Science is full of examples where the truth is completely opposite to the logical conclusion. see my reply below on why I doubt we will ever know for certain.

The latest research in Australia showed that direct interaction by an operator changes the behaviour of Sharks. Our experts have hidden themselves from this, and until our Dep. of Enviro (previously run by that maggot Jamlap-Petersen (;)) ensures that the experts used are NOT married to Cage Operators we will continue to be misrepresented. Here’s the summary;

The effects of berleying on the distribution and behaviour of white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, at the Neptune Islands, South Australia, August 2011

By Rob Munro on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 at 10:36

The effects of berleying on the distribution and behaviour of white sharks,Carcharodon carcharias, at the Neptune Islands, South Australia, August 2011

Research Summary

A study by Barry Bruce and Russell Bradford of the CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Australia

Cage diving at Neptune Islands

Seas and sealions (pinnipeds) form part of a white shark’s annual diet, and sharks may spend from days to months per year at pinniped colonies. Between these visits they travel to other locations seeking other sources of prey. They can swim thousands of kilometres, from temperate to tropical waters, and across the open ocean during these annual travels.

Pinniped colonies that are regularly visited by white sharks can be ideal for shark-viewing tourism. White shark cage diving activities are established near to such pinniped colonies in South Africa, Mexico, California and Australia

In Australia, white shark cage diving occurs only at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park (60–70 km south of Port Lincoln, South Australia) comprising the North and South Neptune Islands.These islands host Australia’s largest pinniped aggregation.

Commercial tour operators involved in white shark cage diving must be licensed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and, if berleying to attract sharks, must have an exemption under the Fisheries Act 1982.

Berleying practices

In South Australia, shark cage diving provides an opportunity to view white sharks in their environment.The sharks are commonly attracted to the viewing vessel through the use of berley (chum), a mix of chopped or minced fish and fish oil. Berleying attracts sharks that are already present in the area to the shark cage-dive vessel and increases the chances of a shark being seen.

Increased frequency of berleying

The shark cage diving industry has worked under a Code of Practice since 2004 to ensure that its operations minimise negative impacts on sharks. Permit requirements also restrict the type of berley than can be used to fish-based products only and these products must be kept refrigerated prior to use.

Days of berleying activity in the SA shark-cage diving industry had remained reasonably stable at an annual average of 128 days from 2000 to 2007. However, the number of days of berleying activity at the Neptune Islands significantly increased after 2007, reaching 270 days in 2009–2010. Berleying activity increased over this time both within the main bay at North Neptune Island and at a second site outside of the bay.

This increase in berleying activity has caused some concern as wildlife tourism that attracts or rewards the target animals, such as through provisioning (feeding), can cause changes in behaviour.Worldwide experience suggests that such changes in behaviour, if they occur, can often have negative consequences for the target animal.

Increasing interest from potential new operators to enter the SA shark cage dive industry combined with concerns regarding the potential for negative impacts on sharks from berleying operations, prompted the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) to set research on the impact of berleying on shark behaviour at the Neptune Islands as a high priority. Such research was also consistent with objectives under the National recovery plan for white sharks as a listed threatened species under Australia’s Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

White shark research at the North Neptune Islands

The North Neptune Islands is a key site for many white sharks in Australian waters and have been the focus of CSIRO-based research on white shark movement patterns, behaviour and habitat use since 1993.

Sharks tagged with electronic tags (satellite, archival and acoustic) have been tracked from the Neptune Islands to Exmouth in north-western Western Australia and to Rockhampton in central Queensland. Sharks tagged with other (non-electronic) tags at The Neptune Islands have also crossed theTasman Sea to New Zealand.

A 2001–2003 CSIRO study at the North Neptune Islands found that the level of berleying at that time had a localised and short-term effect on the distribution and behaviour of sharks and that the effects were concentrated in the bay of the main island where most berleying and shark cage diving activities occurred. Having the results of this initial study provided an opportunity to examine if white shark behaviour had changed at the North Neptune Islands since the 2007 increase in berleying effort.

Acoustic monitoring study: 2010–2011

The purpose of the 2010–2011 study was to see if there had been any changes in the amount of time (residency) white sharks spent at the Neptune Islands since the previous study in 2001–2003 and if there had been any changes in their movement patterns or behaviour.The 2010–2011 study observed the movements of 21 tagged white sharks ranging from 2.8 metres to 4.8 m. The sharks were tagged with acoustic transmitters each of which produces a unique signal that can be identified by moored acoustic receivers.

The presence/absence of individual tagged sharks was monitored by arrays of acoustic receivers at both the North and South the Neptune Islands from December 2009 to April 2011.These receivers were removed at the end of the study so that the data they collected could be examined.These were complemented by monitoring data from a single satellite- linked acoustic receiver maintained inside the main bay at the North Neptune Islands since 2008.The satellite linked receiver automatically sends information on sharks present in the bay each week to researchers at CSIRO in Hobart. Daily logbook records of shark cage dive operator activities from 1999–2011 were also used in the analysis to identify when operators were present and to monitor the number of sharks sighted each day.

Acoustic receivers identical to those used in this study also form a network of stations around the Australian coast as part of the Commonwealth Government funded Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS).The acoustic receivers form part of the Australian AnimalTracking and Monitoring System (http://imos.org.au/aatams.html) and allow researchers to monitor the long- term movements of tagged sharks after they leave the Neptune Islands.

The tagging procedure

Acoustic tags were attached to a small stainless steel arrow head by a short tether. Sharks were attracted to the vessel using fish-based berley and tags were attached externally to each shark as they swam past by using a tagging pole.

What did the monitoring reveal?

General shark movements

As seen in previous research, white sharks tagged during the study were found to be temporary residents of the Neptune Islands. Despite berleying, sharks continue to arrive and leave the Neptune Islands. As in previous years, the number of sharks present at any one time was highly variable.There were some periods when no sharks were present.These patterns are probably driven by differences in the ocean conditions between years and seasons.

Increased berleying has not led to sharks taking up patterns of permanent residency and sharks left the Neptunes Group for other destinations across their Australian range during the study period. For example, three tagged sharks were detected by acoustic receivers moving through south-western Western Australia after leaving the Neptune Islands during the course of the study.

When resident to the Neptune Islands area, some sharks made return transits between the North and South Neptune Islands which are 12 km apart. This occurred regardless of berleying activity and appears to be normal behaviour for sharks in this area.

Changes in shark behaviour

Despite sharks continuing to arrive and depart the Neptune Islands during berleying periods, the 2010-2011 study identified some significant changes in shark behaviour at the North Neptune Islands since berleying effort and regularity increased in 2007.

These changes in behaviour were not observed at the South Neptune Islands where berleying effort has not markedly changed since 2007.

The study found the following changes in the way sharks used the Neptune Islands:

The average amount of time (residency period) that individual sharks spend at the North Neptune Islands has increased from 11 days in 2001- 2003 to 21 days in 2010-2011.

The average number of consecutive days (visits) spent at North Neptune Island during residency periods has increased from 2 days in 2001-2003 to 6.5 days in 2010-2011.

The average number of sharks seen by operators has increased from 2.2 per day prior to 2007 to 3.4 per day after 2007.This does not mean that the abundance of sharks has increased but reflects that they are staying for longer periods and that each individual is seen more often.

The daily movements of sharks has changed to more closely match the arrival and departure of shark cage dive operators, so that now sharks arrive in the berleying areas at about the time operators arrive and leave the area after the operators leave.This pattern now occurs on days where operators are present and also on days when they are not present.

Why is it important to take notice of these changes?
These observations all suggest that berleying operations have changed the way sharks use the environment at the North Neptune Islands.

At present, there is no evidence to suggest that these changes have been harmful to the sharks or that they may lead to changes in their behaviour at any other location. Many of the sharks also visited South Neptune Island and their behaviour at that site was not significantly different to the behaviour of sharks in the 2001–2003 study.

Understanding the impacts of such changes is complicated because each shark is only a temporary visitor to the Neptune Islands and thus is only exposed to berleying for the short time they are there. Also, although berleying provides an attraction for sharks, by itself it provides no reward in the form of food. Small ‘teaser’ baits used by operators to lure sharks closer to the vessel offer some form or reward but this is small compared to the source of natural prey in the area.

Research in other areas of the world has identified that a variety of problems can occur where marine wildlife has been attracted for tourism purposes. For white sharks and their environment at the Neptune Islands, this may include increased aggression between sharks if more sharks remain on site, distraction by tourism activities resulting in fewer opportunities to feed on seals and sealions, changes in predation pressure on seals and sealions, sharks provisioning on a food source (teaser baits) that is not as nutritious as their natural prey and increasing the abundance of fish life that can feed on the small particles that make up berley. These problems can lead to unintentional impacts on the overall health of sharks and to changes in the ecology of the area.

White sharks are a listed threatened species and protected in Australian waters. Minimising identified impacts on them and the environment within which they reside is important, particularly when the implications of such impacts are unknown.

In the case of shark cage diving, all parameters measured in this study suggest that berleying operations have changed the way sharks use the area at the North Neptune Islands. Reducing the impacts of these operations on sharks is thus important to ensure

that there are no long-term negative effects on sharks visiting this area or the marine ecosystem of the region.

The challenge for government agencies and the SA industry will be to reduce the impact of shark cage diving on sharks and the ecosystem while maintaining a world-class diving experience that contributes significantly to the local economy and provides a platform for education, research and conservation. Achieving this balance has the potential to provide a benchmark for managing cage-diving tourism worldwide.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The study makes the following recommendations:

Reduce berleying/provisioning effort

The current level of berleying should be reduced, or at least capped, to minimise further behavioural changes.‘Teaser’ baits should be of a minimum size required to be effective and all reasonable efforts should be made to minimise the number of baits taken by sharks.

On-going monitoring of shark behaviour

Shark residency periods, duration of visits and daily patterns of movements should continue to be monitored to evaluate the sharks’ response to any mitigation actions and enable feedback to managing agencies and industry to ensure such actions are effective.

The most cost-effective monitoring approach would be to maintain the satellite-linked receiver at the North Neptune Islands and to continue to tag sharks with acoustic tags. Additional satellite receivers should be installed at the second berleying site at the North Neptune Islands and at South Neptune Island, (the latter to compare shark behaviour).

Education and awareness program

The shark cage dive industry in South Australia should be provided with educational material for clients that explains:

shark ecology, movements and conservation

the risks posed to sharks by excessive berleying or provisioning;

the importance of minimising the impact of shark cage diving on sharks and the environment; and

To look at stats over the whole planets is too multi faceted, a better case study is waters around Cape Town. We have no scientific study on cage diving and incidents locally. The last 2 decades incidents would correlate positively with cage diving if plotted on a histogram. Yes protection has arguably increased the population, more water users too. The scientists and environmental department took no responsibility for approving the filming, chumming for Shark Man in False Bay, and the sad incident at Koeel Bay the same day. Surfers objected beforehand. Can we start to learn from these incidents. My commiserations and condolences to all parties that have been involved, and pardon to bring back a painful memory. Thanks Rob Munro for researching interaction changes. I surf coach professionally, and taught a lady on her first time back in the sea after she got thrown overboard at Gansbaai (as part of a film crew). Humans should not be feet away from apex predators, making them familiar with our scent, sweat, neoprene, sunscreen, chum and filming this with a go-pro shouting “Oh my God” as the shark gets confused and rams the cage. That is an ego trip to challenge nature and you may disagree, I strongly believe this is not responsible or sustainable tourism. Look at Down South divers- they look at the ecosystem and watch nurse & cow sharks off Millers Point. Respect to this approach.

Sharkbait …
you clearly have an agenda thats one sided, biased and has no space for the understanding of the consequences which are the potential for surfers getting their lives destroyed .You can blab on about data , stats , attacks , incidences etc–bottom line bru when sharks interact unnaturallywith humans and get food they associate the two . It causes a pattern . when that pattern is half baked ie there are humans but no food …what in your world do you think happens? . There are enough near misses , sightings and brushes with GW as you call them at Jaby /St Francis as it is .WHY do we want more .Are you a mentally disturbed person or what ? You need to take your aspirations somewhere else .My name is Grant Frewen , I have been bitten by a shark -it hurts and I dont want it to happen again .So if you are sooo brave enough to dance with this issue why dont you put your real name on this forum ????????????.